Principled Technologies (PT), which Intel paid to obtain some very outrageous test results for its Core i9-9900K eight-core processor launch event test-results, revised its benchmark data by improving its testing methodology partially. Initial tests by the outfit comparing Core i9-9900K to the Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and 2990WX, sprung up false and misleading results because PT tested the AMD chip with half its cores effectively disabled, and crippled its memory controller with an extremely sub-optimal memory configuration (4-module + dual-rank clocked high, leaving the motherboard to significantly loosen up timings).

The original testing provided us with such gems as the i9-9900K "being up to 50 percent faster than 2700X at gaming." As part of its revised testing, while Principled Technologies corrected half its rookie-mistakes, by running the 2700X in the default "Creator Mode" that enables all 8 cores; it didn't correct the sub-optimal memory. Despite this, the data shows gaming performance percentage-differences between the i9-9900K and the 2700X narrow down to single-digit or around 12.39 percent on average, seldom crossing 20 percent. This is a significant departure from the earlier testing, which skewed the average on the basis of >40% differences in some games, due to half the cores being effectively disabled on the 2700X. The bottom-line of PT's new data is this: the Core i9-9900K is roughly 12 percent faster than the Ryzen 7 2700X at gaming, while being a whopping 66% pricier ($319 vs. $530 average online prices).

This whopping 12.3% gap between the i9-9900K and 2700X could narrow further to single-digit percentages if the 2700X is tested with an optimal memory configuration, such as single-rank 2-module dual-channel, with memory timings of around 14-14-14-34, even if the memory clock remains at DDR4-2933 MHz.

Intel responded to these "triumphant" new numbers with the following statement:

Given the feedback from the tech community, we are pleased that Principled Technologies ran additional tests. They've now published these results along with even more detail on the configurations used and the rationale. The results continue to show that the 9th Gen Intel Core i9-9900K is the world's best gaming processor. We are thankful to Principled Technologies' time and transparency throughout the process. We always appreciate feedback from the tech community and are looking forward to comprehensive third party reviews coming out on October 19.

I think for folks who would go balls to the walls spec for their beastly gaming PC, I don't think they even care about price at this point. So far as I know the i9-9900K is capable of clocking 5GHz on all 8 cores thanks to the soldered IHS, unlike the i7-8700K where you need to delid it in order to reach the same level of performance. Same core & thread count as the R7 2700X but has way higher turbo boost frequencies & sustains it better. Also, you don't need to spend more money on Ryzen-optimized RAM kits... even a typical 2666MHz DDR4 RAM kit does the job.

Very likely. AMD is still at 105W TDP and has the freedom of increasing TDP headroom to 125W (it's not bound by some 95W MSDT "barrier" unlike Intel). So it could give Pinnacle Ridge >5.00 GHz boost+XFR clocks, a higher memory divider enabling DDR4-3600, and some other tweaks.

I think for folks who would go balls to the walls spec for their beastly gaming PC, I don't think they even care about price at this point. So far as I know the i9-9900K is capable of clocking 5GHz on all 8 cores thanks to the soldered IHS, unlike the i7-8700K where you need to delid it in order to reach the same level of performance. Same core & thread count as the R7 2700X but has way higher turbo boost frequencies & sustains it better. Also, you don't need to spend more money on Ryzen-optimized RAM kits... even a typical 2666MHz DDR4 RAM kit does the job.

But you do need to spend a LOT of money on proper cooling if you are going for that 5GHz all core. And that will be much more expensive than memory for Ryzen.
At which point you are no longer looking at a $530 CPU but a $650-700 one.

If I'm already spending well over $2k, why I wanna skimp out on the processor? I would pick the 9900K over the 2700X coz its obvious that 1.) it clocks at 5GHz, 2.) it beaten the 2700X in more than half of the benchmarks, whether botched or honest & 3.) it's an Intel product. You don't need to fiddle around in the UEFI just so you can squeeze whatever performance there is in it, like AMD.

New Member

If I'm already spending well over $2k, why I wanna skimp out on the processor? I would pick the 9900K over the 2700X coz its obvious that 1.) it clocks at 5GHz, 2.) it beaten the 2700X in more than half of the benchmarks, whether botched or honest & 3.) it's an Intel product. You don't need to fiddle around in the UEFI just so you can squeeze whatever performance there is in it, like AMD.

If I'm already spending well over $2k, why I wanna skimp out on the processor? I would pick the 9900K over the 2700X coz its obvious that 1.) it clocks at 5GHz, 2.) it beaten the 2700X in more than half of the benchmarks, whether botched or honest & 3.) it's an Intel product. You don't need to fiddle around in the UEFI just so you can squeeze whatever performance there is in it, like AMD.

No need to fiddle around in the UEFI, or do you?
One of the first thing people buys Intel K-version CPUs is to go in the UEFI and try to overclock it to 5Ghz+, that is like the biggest advantage Intel has, sheer clock speeds.
Not to mention run all the stress tests to make sure the OC is stable.

If I'm already spending well over $2k, why I wanna skimp out on the processor? I would pick the 9900K over the 2700X coz its obvious that 1.) it clocks at 5GHz, 2.) it beaten the 2700X in more than half of the benchmarks, whether botched or honest & 3.) it's an Intel product. You don't need to fiddle around in the UEFI just so you can squeeze whatever performance there is in it, like AMD.

Which is why I said the 8700K is a much better buy. Stock vs stock. Once you get into overclocking, the original price/performance ratios go down the drain.
You can spend the leftover money for a better GPU.

No need to fiddle around in the UEFI, or do you?
One of the first thing people buys Intel K-version CPUs is to go in the UEFI and try to overclock it to 5Ghz+, that is like the biggest advantage Intel has, sheer clock speeds.
Not to mention run all the stress tests to make sure the OC is stable.

I like how this greedy bluegreen couple tries to rip you for extra cash, just preteding to be “exclusive”, higher quality or better perfomance-
Hell, even that, they are so unconfident in doing all that advertising, torning between all they’re flushing, resulting in a complete mess about “what their product really is”
-and you know whats the most pretty in all this? THEY ARE NOT PREMIUM. They are not made from better materials than other stuff in semicond. market, they wont last longer, they dont have premium options. Hell, do Intel and ngreedia know what does PREMIUM means??? If they’ll sell their CPU’s in some Ferrari kind of shop, with cup of coffee and a manager kissing ur arse just to buy their stuff - that I will call premium over AMD. Nit just silly ~10% perfomance gain.

Rich people pay more for better service or good - and NEVER for the same stuff available for every, just in order to show they have more money.
All in all, PC gaming is a leisure - and it shouldnt be considered as a major part of your expenses. This price hike tactics just initially false, from very beginning

If I'm already spending well over $2k, why I wanna skimp out on the processor? I would pick the 9900K over the 2700X coz its obvious that 1.) it clocks at 5GHz, 2.) it beaten the 2700X in more than half of the benchmarks, whether botched or honest & 3.) it's an Intel product. You don't need to fiddle around in the UEFI just so you can squeeze whatever performance there is in it, like AMD.

I like how this greedy bluegreen couple tries to rip you for extra cash, just preteding to be “exclusive”, higher quality or better perfomance-
Hell, even that, they are so unconfident in doing all that advertising, torning between all they’re flushing, resulting in a complete mess about “what their product really is”
-and you know whats the most pretty in all this? THEY ARE NOT PREMIUM. They are not made from better materials than other stuff in semicond. market, they wont last longer, they dont have premium options. Hell, do Intel and ngreedia know what does PREMIUM means??? If they’ll sell their CPU’s in some Ferrari kind of shop, with cup of coffee and a manager kissing ur arse just to buy their stuff - that I will call premium over AMD. Nit just silly ~10% perfomance gain.

Rich people pay more for better service or good - and NEVER for the same stuff available for every, just in order to show they have more money.
All in all, PC gaming is a leisure - and it shouldnt be considered as a major part of your expenses. This price hike tactics just initially false, from very beginning

If I'm already spending well over $2k, why I wanna skimp out on the processor? I would pick the 9900K over the 2700X coz its obvious that 1.) it clocks at 5GHz, 2.) it beaten the 2700X in more than half of the benchmarks, whether botched or honest & 3.) it's an Intel product. You don't need to fiddle around in the UEFI just so you can squeeze whatever performance there is in it, like AMD.

The big difference between comparing the 9900k and 2700x at stock speeds is the Intel option can OC to another 500mhz minimum, while the 2700x is basically running at its max frequency already. So take that 12% advantage and make it around 20% after tweaking.

Ryzen at 4.2ghz all core vs Intel at 5.3 is a bit more than 12% I think.

And that's going with 8700k levels of OC. It's entirely possible the 9700/9900 can do 5.5.

That would only be true if the 9700k would not exist. It's already proven that hyper threading adds more heat than performance and in the end may be possibly open for attacks. I was all for hyper-threading in the past, nowadays is not needed anymore.

The big difference between comparing the 9900k and 2700x at stock speeds is the Intel option can OC to another 500mhz minimum, while the 2700x is basically running at its max frequency already. So take that 12% advantage and make it around 20% after tweaking.

Ryzen at 4.2ghz all core vs Intel at 5.3 is a bit more than 12% I think.

And that's going with 8700k levels of OC. It's entirely possible the 9700/9900 can do 5.5.

These CPUs are still Coffee Lake, generally when 2 cpus are on the same process, the higher core-count CPU often OC a bit less due to the extra heat output.
Also there are varience between each core in the same chip, you you might be somewhat limted by how far the worse core can go.
Yes you can OC each core individually but that is an awful lot of work for dubious gains.
So it remains to be seen how well these chips actually OC.

I think for folks who would go balls to the walls spec for their beastly gaming PC, I don't think they even care about price at this point. So far as I know the i9-9900K is capable of clocking 5GHz on all 8 cores thanks to the soldered IHS, unlike the i7-8700K where you need to delid it in order to reach the same level of performance. Same core & thread count as the R7 2700X but has way higher turbo boost frequencies & sustains it better. Also, you don't need to spend more money on Ryzen-optimized RAM kits... even a typical 2666MHz DDR4 RAM kit does the job.